Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	covenant_n	law_n	sin_n	4,869	5	5.4906	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39697	Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1205A; ESTC R218689	64,584	175

Covenant of Works whose Terms or Condition is do this and live and the Promise or Gospel whose Condition is Believe and thou shalt be saved are not specifically different but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness and the Reason you give is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir enlighten us in this rare Notion Did Christ die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed and to be justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Disserence between them If it be so why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant yea Abraham's too being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the gospel-Gospel-Covenant And then I say you contradict the Apostle who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such to the Covenant of Grace and tells us they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other and this he spake after Christ's Death and actual satisfaction But 4. That which more amazes me is the strange Answer you give to Mr. Sedgwick Page 132 133. in your return to his Argument That if the Law and the Promise can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works You answer That the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not thence follow that there is an inconsistence betwixt them and that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise tends to the Establishment of it And Page 133. That by convincing Men of the Impossibility of obtaining Rest and Peace in themselves and the necessity of betaking themselves to the Promise c. the Law is not against the Promise having so Blessed a Subserviency towards the Establishment thereof Here you own a Subserviency yea a Blessed Subserviency of the Law to the Promise which is that Mr. Sedgwick and my self have urged to prove it cannot be so as it is a pure Adam's Covenant but that therefore it must come under another Consideration only here we differ you say it hath a Blessed Subserviency to the Promise as it is the same with Adam's Covenant we say it can never be so as such but as it is either a Covenant of Grace though more obscure as he speaks or though the matter of it should be the same with Adam's Covenant yet it is subserviently a Covenant of Grace as others speak and under no other Consideration can it be reconciled to the Promise But will you stand to this that the Law hath no Hostile Contradiction to the Promise but a Blessed Subserviency to it as you speak Page 173. where you say That if we preach up the Law as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are equipollent Terms let us distinguish as we please between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely aud Subserviently such then we make an ill use of the Law by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for and are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together Reply Here Sir my Understanding is perfectly posed and I know not how to make any tolerable Orthodox Sense out of this Position Is the Law preached up as a pure Covenant of Works that is pressing Men to the personal and punctual Obedience of it in order to their Justification by Works no way repugnant to the Promise but altogether so when preached in Subserviency to Christ and Faith This is new Divinity with me and I believe must be so to every Intelligent Reader Don't I oppose the Promise when I preach up the Law as a pure Covenant of Works which therefore as such must be Exclusive of Christ and the Promise and do I oppose either when I tell Sinners the Terrors of the Law serve only to drive them to Christ their only Remedy who is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that Believeth Rom. 10. 4. are Works and Grace more consistent than Grace with Grace Explain your meaning in this Paradoxical Expression and leave not your self and others in such a Maze I read Gal. 3. 19. for what end God published the Law 430 years after the Promise was made to Abraham and find it was added because of Transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was put to not set up by it self alone as a distinct Cov●… nant but added as an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace whence it is plain that God added the Sinai Law to the Promise with Evangelical ends and Purposes If then I preach the Law to the very same Evangelical Uses and Purposes for which God added it to the Promise do I therein make an ill use of the Law and mingle Life and Death together But preaching it as a pure Covenant of Works as it holds forth Justification to Sinners by Obedience to its Precepts do I then make it blessedly subservient as you speak to the Promise or Covenant of Grace The Law was added because of Transgression that is to restrain Sin in the World and to convince Sinners under guilt of the necessity of another Righteousness than their own even that of Christ and for the same ends God added it to the Promise I always did and still shall Preach it and I am perswaded without the least danger of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together in your Sense 'T is plain to me that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai God did not in the least intend to give them so much 〈◊〉 a Direction how to obtain Justification ●…y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible and beside had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose he had not added it but directly opposed it to the Promise which its manifest he did not Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God God forbid And ver 18. makes it appear that had it been set up to that end and purpose it had utterly disannulled the Promise for if the inheritance be of the law it is no more by promise What then can be clearer than that the Law at Sinai was published with gracious Gospel-ends and purposes to lead Men to Christ which Adam's Covenant had no respect nor reference to and therefore it can never be a pure Adam's Covenant as you falsly call it neither is it capable of becoming a pure Covenant of Works to any Man but by his own Fault in rejecting the Righteousness of Christ and seeking Justification by the works of the Law as the mistaken carnal Jews did Rom. 10. 3. and other legal Justiciaries now do And upon this account only it is that Paul who so highly praises the Law in its subserviency to Christ thunders so dreadfully against it as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken Souls in direct Opposition to Christ. 5ly And

these three Principles or Positions on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed and these being destroyed his other Discourses are but arenae sine calce I properly therefore begin with the Foundation Next I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvert●…d and where it is in each of these that ●…he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us ●…nd as to I Position viz. That the Sinai-Law is the same with A●…am's Covenant of Works made in Para●…ice The difference betwixt us here is not 〈◊〉 Whether both these be called Co●…enants in Scripture nor 2. Whether there were no Grace at all in both or either of them For we are agreed it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man whatever that Covenant be nor 3. Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men by their own fault and occasion nor 4. Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves nor 5. Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law These are not the Points we contend about But the Question is Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it revive the Law of Nature to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them fo●… righteousness and life he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness humble proud Nature and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ now exhibited in the New Covenant as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners The latter I defend according to the Scriptures the former Mr. Cary seems to assert and vehemently argue for 2ly In this Controversie about the Sinai Law I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing as he ought betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law for both which it is often taken in Scripture and more strictly for the Moral Law only as it is sometimes used in Scripture These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works yet I never met with any Man before that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law which is so full of Christ to be so and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains 3ly The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments is not by him distinguished as it ought to be and as the Scripture frequently doth according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very rule and reason of their Justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law yea the very denomination of that Law depends hereon For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men but from the true scope design and end for which God published it after the Fall And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture The man that doth them shall live in them And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention but Mans corruption and abuse of it the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works Gods end was not to justifie them but to try them by that terrible dispensation Ezod 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteousness for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai not to open the way of self-justification to them but to convince them and shut them up to Christ just as our Saviour Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments not to drive him from but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith The Law in both these Senses is excellently described Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah the figures of the two Covenants Hagar in her first and proper Station was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed and brings forth Children that aspire to the Inheritance then saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman with her son So it is here take the Law in its primary use as God designed it as a School-master or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise so it is consistent with them and excellently subservient to them but if we marry this Hand-maid and espouse it as a Covenant of Works then are we bound to it for life Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law which directed them to Christ and so they became Children of the Free-woman The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness and so became Children of the Bond-woman but neither could be Children of both at once no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position and as to the II Position That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also because Circumcision was annexed to it which obliged Men to keep the whole Law The Controversie betwixt us in this point is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham nor 2. Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be and actually were signed by it nor 3. Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person for he allows ●…t to be so to Abraham nor 4. Whe●…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law and so must cease at the death of Christ But the difference betwixt us is Whether ●…1 it was a Seal of the Covenant to ●…one but Abraham and 2. Whether ●…n the very nature of the Act or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law as Adam was obliged to keep it in inno●…ency 3. Whether it were utterly ●…bolished at the death of Christ as a

and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it and design in it for in it self and with respect to Gods design in the Institution of it it was to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordinance to all Believers as long as the Ceremonial Law stood and even when it was expiring as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly there was yet some kind of Toleration of it to such as were born of Jewish Parents Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy his Mother being a Jewess Acts 16. 1 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circumcised and that because of these false Teachers that would make an ill use of that their Liberty Gal. 2. 3 4. this Paul could never have done in case Circumcision in the nature of the act had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification By which it appears that the action in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the Intention of the Agent and therefore as the Apostle rightly argues if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself but it was now to have its Funeral with all other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd and were accomplished in the Death of Christ and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time the Apostle thus thunders against it Had this been observed as also the like abuse of the Moral Law you would have known how to have reconciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both with his sharp Invectives against the one and the other But being Ignorant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai and the carnal Jews Sense of it as a pure Covenant of works against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition and another in your Minor and so every Argument hath four Terms in it as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision as a Bond to keep the whole Law and as such vacating the Death of Christ is a stumble at the same stone not distinguishing as you ought to have done betwixt an Obligation arising out of the nature of the work and out of the end and intention of the Workers and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily discern But we proceed to Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the Corruption of his Nature by Sin and the Mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works but so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man points to the Means and Instruments of his Sin and Misery and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. 1. It singles out that Genital part by which original Sin was propagated Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Covenant is applied in Circumcision for the Remission of Sins past and the Extirpation of Sin for the future 2. Therefore it was instituted of God that Men might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection whereof Baptism that succeeds it is a Sign now as Circumcision was then as is plain from Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism wherein also ye are risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead 'T is clear then that Circumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts and if it did so sure it was not the Covenant of Works for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy 3. It was also a discriminating Sign or Token betwixt the Church and the World God's People and the Heathens who were accordingly denominated from it the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision the Holy Seed and the Gentiles And now under the New Testament the Children of Abraham by Faith and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it cannot be the Covenant of Works for in that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Person State and State If this be not enough to evince that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace I promise you many more Arguments to prove it as soon as I shall find these refuted and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded You see how genuine natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is and all the World may see how harsh alien and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision as a Covenant of Works is You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion Exemp gra That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law which was dedicated with Blood and therefore could be no ●…art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments which was say you the Co●…enant of Works and yet that it is of ●…he same nature and that it 's clear 〈◊〉 is no other than a Covenant of Works Don't you there distinguish and confound all again blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood was sealed by Christs Blood Pray Sir consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd or to nothing Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis to say with Bellarmine That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ and Jacob a Prince with God O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace and of the other part which you your self call a Restipulation to make another quite opposite Covenant Don't you magnifie the Bounty and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses and then destroy it

all by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies Don't you make Circumcision in its own Nature without respect to the intention of the Person an Obligation to the whole Law and that which frustrates the Death of Christ and yet must grant that Paul himself took Timothy and circumcised him and yet thereby brought him under no such dangerous obligation to the Law In a word You reject all those Covenants as legal that have any conditions in them or respect to any thing that is to be done by us and allow Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. to be pure Gospel-Covenants of Grace and yet in the first Abraham is bound to walk before God and be perfect and in the other God saith For because thou hast done this thing surely blessing I will bless thee And so much for Abraham's Covenant III. Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant Come we next to consider that Opinion of yours which led you into these other gross mistakes and absurdities and that is this That the Covenant of Grace is absolute and whatever Covenant is not so but hath any condition upon our part must needs for that reason be a Covenant of Works See Page 229. It is observable say you that as the Covenants mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 20. c. were all conditional and therefore legal Covenants requiring strict and perfect Obedience as the condition propounded in order to the enjoyment of the mercies contained in them which are all therefore done away in Christ so on the other hand we see that the Covenant God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and Gen. 17. 2 3. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. was wholly free and absolute and therefore purely Evangelical c. We will review these things anon and see if you truly represent the matter but in order to it let me first tell you 1. What we mean by a Gospel-Condition 2. Prove that there are such in the Gospel-Covenant 3. Shew you the absurdity of your Opinion against it 1. What we mean by a Condition in the Gospel-Covenant By a Condition of the Covenant we do not mean in the strictest rigid Sense of the Word such a Restipulation to God from Man of perfect Obedience in his own Person at all times so as the least Failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the Covenant That 's rather the condition of Adam's Covenant of Works than of the Evangelical Covenant nor do we assert any meritorious condition that in the nature of an impulsive Cause shall bring Man into the Covenant and its Priviledges or continue him in when brought in This we renounce as well as you but our Question is about such a Condition as is neither in the Nature of it an Act perfect in every degree nor meritorious in the least of the Benefit conferr'd nor yet done in our own strength But plainly and briefly our Question is Whether there be not something as an Act required of us in point of Duty to a Blessing consequent by vertue of a promise Such a thing whatever it be hath the nature of a Condition inasmuch as it is antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise and the Mercy or Benefit granted is suspended until it be performed The Question is not Whether there be any intrinsecal worth or value in the thing so required to oblige the Disposer to make or perform the Grant or Promise but meerly that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit and that the disposer of the benefit do suspend the benefit until it be performed Thus an Act or Duty of ours which hath nothing at all of Merit in it or answerable value to the benefit it relates to may be in a proper Sense a Condition of the said benefit For what is a Condition in the true Notion of it but the Suspension of a Grant until something future be done or as others to the same purpose the adding of words to a Grant for the future of a suspending quality according to which the Disposer will have the benefit he disposeth to be regulated This properly is a Condition though there be nothing of equivalent value or merit in the thing required And such your Brethren in their Narrative pag. 14. do acknowledge Faith to be when they assert none can be actually reconciled justifyed or adopted till they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith and so by vertue of this their Union with him have these fundamental benefits actually conveyed unto them which contains the proper Notion of the Condition we contend for And such a Condition of Salvation we assert Faith to be in the New Covenant Grant that is to say the Grant of Salvation by God in the Gospel-Covenant is suspended from all Men till they believe and is due by Promise not Merit to them as soon as they do truly believe The Notes or Signs of a Condition given by Civilians or Moralists are such as these If If not unless but if except only and the like When these are added in the Promise of a Blessing or Benefit for the future they make that Promise conditional and your Grammar according to which you must speak if you speak properly and strictly will tell you that Si sin modo dum dummodo are all conditional Particles and it is evident that these conditional Particles are frequently inserted in the Grants of the Blessings and Priviledges of the New Testament As for example Mark 9. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou canst believe Acts 8. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest c. Rom. 10. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth and believe with thy heart c. thou shalt be saved Matth. 18. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except ye be converted and become as little Children you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven Mark 5. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe Mark 11. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if ye forgive not c. with multitudes more which are all conditional Particles inserted in the Grants of Benefits 2. Having shewn what the nature of a Condition is I shall I hope make it plain to you That Faith is such a Condition in the Gospel-grant of our Salvation for we find the Benefit suspended till this Act of Faith be performed John 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And most plainly Rom. 10. 9. having shewn before what the Condition of Legal Righteousness was he tells us there what the Gospel-condition of Salvation is The righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved I ask you Sir

the Gospel Col. 2. 11 12. 4. They constantly affirm That none of those Grants or Priviledges made to the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Family were ever repealed or revoked by Christ or his Apostles and therefore Believers Children now are in the rightful Possession of them and that therefore there needed no new Command or Promise in Abraham's Command we find our Duty to Sign our Children with the Sign of the Covenant and in Abraham's Promise we find God's gracious Grant to our Children as well as his especially since the Apostle directs us in this very respect to the Covenant of God with Abraham Acts 2. 38 39. These Sir are the Principles on which we lay as you say great Stress and which to this day you have never been able to shake down here therefore you attempt a new Method to do it by proving this Covenant is now abolished and this is your Method in which you promise your self great Success Three things you pretend to prove 1. That the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20. 2. That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. are no Gospel-Covenants and that because 3. The Gospel-Covenant is Absolute and Unconditional How you come to hook in the Mosaick Covenant into this Controversie is not very evident unless you think it were easie for you to prove that to be a Covenant of Works and then Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. being an Old Testament Covenant were the more easily proved to be of the same nature I am obliged to examine your three Positions above noted and if I evidence to the World the Falsity of them the Cause you manage is so far lost and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism stands firm upon its old and sure Foundation I begin therefore with your I Position That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same Now if I prove that this Assertion of yours doth naturally and regularly draw many false and absurd Consequents upon you which you are and must be forced to own then this your Position cannot be true for from true Premisses nothing but truth can naturally and regularly follow but I shall make it plain to you that this your Position regularly draws many false Conclusions and gross Absurdities upon you some of which you own expresly and others you as good as own being able to return nothing rational or satisfactory in your own defence against them 1. From this Assertion that the Sinai Covenant was a pure Covenant of Works the very same with Adam's Covenant it regularly and necessarily follows that either Moses and all Israel were Damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running parallel with that Covenant of Works and so the Elect People of God were at one and the same time under the first as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification This Dilemma pinches you to assert that Moses and all the Elect of God under that Dispensation were damned you dare not and if you had you must have expunged the 11th Chapter to the Hebrews and a great part of the New Testament together with all your hopes of sitting down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven The latter therefore seeing you cannot avoid you are forc'd upon and in plain words yield it p. 174 175. That Moses and the whole body of the Children of Israel without exception of any were under yea absolutely under the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse That the Covenant they were under could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation when yet it is also evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth that at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel-grace and that these two Covenants were just opposite the one to the other but to this you have nothing to say but with the Apostle in another case O the depth Here Sir you father a pure and perfect contradiction upon the Holy Scriptures that it speaks things just opposite and contradictory the one to the other and of necessity one part or member of a contradiction must be false this all the rational World knows but so it is say you and fly to the infinite Wisdom to reconcile them for you say you know not what to say to it Just so the Papists serve us in the Controversie about Transubstantiation when they cannot reconcile one thing with another they fly to the Omnipotent Power to do it But Sir I wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs naturally into such gross absurdities Do you see what follows from hence by unavoidable consequence you must according to this Principle hold That Moses and all Gods peculiar elect People in Israel must during their Life hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell 1. During Life they must hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation justify'd they could not be for Justification is the Souls passing from Death to Life 1 John 3. 14. John 5. 24. This they could not possibly do for the ministration of Death and Condemnation hindred He that is under Condemnation by the Law cannot during that state pass into Life And yet to be under Condemnation is as impossible on the other side for he that is justified cannot at the same time be under Condemnation Rom. 8. 1. John 5. 24. What remains then but that during Life they must stick mid-way betwixt both neither justify'd nor condemned and yet both so and so Justification is our Life and Condemnation our Death in Law Betwixt these two which are privatively oppos'd there can be no Medium of participation and yet such a Medium you here fancy 2. And then after Death they must necessarily hang betwixt Heaven and Hell to Heaven none can go that are under the very rigour and tyranny of the Law a pure Covenant of Works as you say they were To Hell they could not go being under the pure Covenant of Grace What remains then but some third state must be assigned them and so at last we have found the Limbus Patrum and your Position leads us right to Purgatory a Conclusion which I believe you your self abhor as much as I. 2ly This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law or there was none if you say ●…one you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40 46. If there were then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works You answer pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam 's Covenant too but neither Adam 's Covenant nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any

further to clear this Point the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Whence I argue That if Adam's Covenant had one End namely the Justification of Men by their own personal Obedience and the Law at Sinai had a quite contrary End namely To bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness the one to keep him within himself the other to take him quite out of himself and bring him for his Justification to the Righteousness of another even that of Christ then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same thing with Adam's Covenant of Works but the Antecedent is true and plain in the forecited Text therefore so is the Consequent Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness Take the Law here either more strictly for the Moral Law or more largely as it comprehends the Ceremonial Law still Christ is the end of the Law The Moral Law shuts up every Man to Christ for Righteousness by convincing him according to Gods design in the Publication of it of the impossibility of obtaining Justification in the way of Works And the Ceremonial Law many ways prefigured Christ his Death and Satisfaction by Blood in our room and so led Men to Christ their true Propitiation and all its Types were fulfilled and ended in Christ. Was there any such thing in Adam's Covenant You must prove there was else you will never be able to make them one and the same Covenant 6ly It seems exceeding probable from Acts 7. 37 38. That the Sinai Covenant was delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ there called the Angel This is he that was in the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai and with our Fathers who received the lively Oracles to give unto us Now if Christ himself were the Angel and the Precepts of the Law delivered by him to Moses were the Lively Oracles of God as they are there expresly affirm'd to be then the Law delivered on Mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works For it is never to be imagined that Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation and that those Precepts which if they were of the same nature and revived to the same end at which Adam's Covenant directly aimed should be called the Lively Oracles of God When contrarywise upon your Supposition they could be no other than a Ministration of Condemnation and Death But that they were Lively Oracles viz. in their Design and Intention is plain in the Text and that they were delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ the Angel of the Covenant seems more than probable by comparing it with the former Verses 7ly Neither is it easie to imagin how such a Covenant which by the Fall of Adam had utterly lost all its Promises Priviledges and Blessings and could retain nothing but the Curses and Punishments annexed to it in case of the least Failure could possibly be numbred among the chief Priviledges in which Gods Israel gloried as it apparently was Rom. 9. 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises These things considered with many more which the intended Brevity of this Discourse will not now admit I am fully satisfy'd of the Falsity of your Position and so may you too when you shall review the many gross and palpable Absurdities with which I have clogg'd and loaded it with many more regularly and fairly deducible from it which I could easily produce did I not suspect these I have produced have already pressed your Patience a littly too far But if ever I shall see which I never expect a fair and Scriptural Solution of these weighty Objections you may expect from me more Arguments against your unsound Position which at the present I judge needless to add To conclude Those Premises as before I noted can never be true from whence such and so many gross and notorious Absurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible For Ex veris nil nisi verum from true Premises nothing but Truth can regularly follow Had you minded those things which I seasonably sent you you had avoided all those Boggs into which you are now sunk and been able fairly to reconcile all those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles with respect to the Law at Sinai But however by what hath been said your first Position That the Sinai Covenant is the same Covenant of Works with Adam 's in Paradise vanishes before the Evidence of Scripture-truth and sound Reason But yet though what I have said destroys your false Position I am not willing to leave you or the Reader ignorant wherein the Truth lies in this controverted Point betwixt us and that will appear by a due consideration of the following Particulars 1. 'T is plain and uncontroverted That Adam's Covenant in Paradise contained in it a perfect Law and Rule of natural Righteousness founded both in God's Nature and in Mans which in its perfect state of Innocency was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith For the Scripture tells us Eccles. 7. 29. That God made Man upright and his punctual complying therewith was the Righteousness by which he stood 2. This Covenant of Works being once broken can never more be available to the Justification and Salvation of any Fallen Man There was not now a Law found that could give Righteousness the broken Covenant of Works lost immediately all the Blessings and Priviledges which before it contain'd and retain'd only the Curse and Punishment in token whereof Cherubims with flaming Swords turning every way were set to keep the way of the Tree of Life Gen. 3. 24. 3. Soon after the Violation of the Covenant of Works God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of Mankind now miserable and hopeless the Second Covenant which we call the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which is the first opening of the Grace of God in Christ to Fallen Man and though this first Promise of Christ was but short and obscure yet it was in every Age to be opened clearer and clearer until the promised Seed should come After the first opening of this new Covenant in the first Promise of Christ the first Covenant is shut up for ever as a Covenant of Life and Salvation and all the World are shut up to the only way of Salvation by Christ Gal. 3. 23. it being contrary to the Will of God that two ways of Salvation should stand open to Man at once and they so opposite one to another as the way of Works and the way of Faith are Acts 4. 12. John 14. 6. Gal. 2. 21. 4. 'T is evident however that after the first opening of the Promise of Christ Gen. 3. 15. God foreseeing the Pride of Fallen Man who naturally inclines to

those Duties and Ordinances for Righteousness and Justification made it a Covenant of Works to themselves and Circumcision it self a Bond of that Covenant 6. Now for as much as Circumcision prefigured Christ who was to come of this Holy circumcised Seed of Abraham and his Death also was pointed at therein Heb. 2. 16. Col. 2. 11. of necessity this Ordinance must vanish at the Death of Christ and accordingly did so These things duly pondered how irrational is it to imagine this Covenant of Circumcision to be the very same with the Paradisical Covenant Did that Covenant discover native Corruption and direct to its remedy in Christ as this did Surely it gave not the least glimps of any such thing Did that Covenant separate and distinguish one Person from another as this did No no it left all under equal and common Misery Eph. 2. 3. Had Adam's Covenant a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith annexed to it as this had Rom. 4. 11. He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith The Righteousness of Faith is Evangelical Righteousness and this Circumcision sealed Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it for 't is an injurious Restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers as well as to Abraham Luke 1. 72. But you admit however that it sealed Evangelical Righteousness to Abraham but I hope you will not say that a Seal of the Covenant of Works ever did or could Seal Evangelical Righteousness to any individual Person in the World So then turn which way you will this truth still follows you and will fasten upon you That the Covenant of Circumcision was not a pure Covenant of Works but a Gospel-Covenant which I thus prove Argument I. If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so dedicated is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works even by your own confession But it is so Ergo. That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law was never doubted or denied by any Man That it was dedicated by Blood and therefore no part of the Moral Law you your self not only acknowledge but vehemently plead for it Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness and unbecoming Reflection for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood and the Law written in Tables of Stone which was not so dedicated and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law which you make the Covenant of works telling him that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law or Sinai Covenant of works as you say it doth and ought to do how then can Circumcision be the same with and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by ●…lood Yes the Apostle ●…lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18 19. ●…4 7 8. Moses took the Book ●…f the Covenant and read it in the audience ●…f the people and took the blood and sprink●…d it upon the people and said behold the ●…lood of the Covenant which the Lord hath ●…ade with you concerning these things But ●…hat kind of Covenant then was this Co●…enant that was sprinkled with Blood ●…ou tell us Page 147. it could not possi●…y be the Law written in Stones which ●…ou make the Covenant of works but ●…as indeed another Covenant delivered 〈◊〉 a distinct Season and in a distinct ●…ethod What Covenant then must this ●…e seeing it could not possibly as you ●…y be the Sinai Covenant written in ●…ones It must either be the Covenant ●…f Grace or none No say you that 〈◊〉 was not neither for it was of the same ●…ture with and is no other than a Co●…enant of works Page 151. it was the ●…me and yet could not possibly be the same Mr. Sedgwick that Learned-Grave Divine is check'd Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that wa●… sprinkled with Blood with the Mora●… Law which you call the Covenant o●… works that was not sprinkled wit●… Blood and say you Page 147. It coul●… not possibly be the same And then P. 151 you say It 's clear these two viz. th●… Moral and Ceremonial Law were both 〈◊〉 the same nature that is no other than 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works How doth this han●… together Pray reconcile it if you ca●… You say it is an ungrounded Supposition 〈◊〉 Mr. Sedgwick 's that that Covenant whi●… was so confirmed by Blood must of necessi●… be confirmed by the Blood of Christ als●… Page 148. But Sir the truth you oppos●… viz. That the Book of the Ceremoni●… Law was sprinkled by Typical Bloo●… and therefore confirmed by the Blo●… of Christ for the time it was to contin●… shines like a bright Sun-beam in yo●… Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. was not t●… Blood that sprinkled this Law the 〈◊〉 gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then if not Christ'●… How dare you call this an unground●… Supposition was not that Blood Typ●… cal Blood And what I pray you was the Antitype but Christ's Blood And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things You distinguish and confound all again You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone and you say it 's clear both were of the same nature no other than a Covenant of works At this ●…ate you may say what you please for 〈◊〉 see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book Argument II. If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not per●…ain to the Covenant of works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are Opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He ●…i e. Abraham received the sign of Cir●…umcision a seal of the righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not to the Cove●…ant of Works but Grace A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture an Argument as this is The Major Proposition is even self-evident and undeniable the Minor the plain words of the Apostle And what is your Reply to this certainly as strange a one as ever I met with Page 205. You say 'T is true Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham but it was so to him only in his extraordinary Circumstance●… but it was not so to any of his natural S●… in its ordinary use I cannot deny but I have met with such an Assertion before in Mr. Tombes and I can tell you too that Bellarmine invented it before Mr. Tombes was born and that Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause o●… Abraham's account why God should justifie or seal him more than any other